I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 11:33:28 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP

Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP

Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.

Of course we can all ignore quotations that challenge our own views, such an attitude is common enough, but in the present case the quotation does show that St. Gregory did not hold to the modern theory of the papacy advocated by the West in the 19th century, i.e., that the pope had a unique succession from Peter that made him the sole arbiter in matters of theological dispute.

That said, I have seen many Orthodox who will take quotations like the one above and not only deny the theory of papal supremacy, but also the notion of primacy; while Western Catholics will often confuse these two distinct ideas and try to use quotations from St. Gregory (and others) to prove that the late 19th century theory of papal authority is somehow ancient.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 11:57:30 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP

Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.

Of course we can all ignore quotations that challenge our own views, such an attitude is common enough, but in the present case the quotation does show that St. Gregory did not hold to the modern theory of the papacy advocated by the West in the 19th century, i.e., that the pope had a unique succession from Peter that made him the sole arbiter in matters of theological dispute.

That said, I have seen many Orthodox who will take quotations like the one above and not only deny the theory of papal supremacy, but also the notion of primacy; while Western Catholics will often confuse these two distinct ideas and try to use quotations from St. Gregory (and others) to prove that the late 19th century theory of papal authority is somehow ancient.

Once again, no one knows why you are in communion with Rome. If Rome is wrong, and the Orthodox are right, then why not choose to be in communion with those who you think are right?

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 12:39:25 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Your posts always make me dizzy. haha. So why be incommunion with some one who is in communion with some one who is wrong, when you can be in communion with some one who is communion with some one who is right? Ok, I just fell over.

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 01:04:20 PM by J Michael »

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.

My pleasure !

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.

My pleasure !

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.

Many people take the papacy too seriously.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.

My pleasure !

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.

I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?

I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East. Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodoxy en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 02:25:27 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?

I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East. Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodox en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.

My pleasure !

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.

Many people take the papacy too seriously.

Yes... you do.

Believe me, I don't! The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?

I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East. Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodox en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.

And why not go into communion with the Communion you agree with?

I am in communion with the Church I agree with (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church).

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.

My pleasure !

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.

Many people take the papacy too seriously.

Yes... you do.

Believe me, I don't! The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.

Oh but you do. Everytime the Pope is dicussed in relationship to the Eastern Catholic Churches, you take it as an opportunity to dissent from Catholic teaching, creating your own religion that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

The following is an address on ecumenism given by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III Laham at:

Holy Apostles SeminaryCromwell, CTTuesday, May 28, 2002

From Unia to Koinonia

It is well known that it was in Antioch that the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth were called Christians for the first time (Acts 11: 26). This indicates the importance of the Antiochian Metropolis in the history of the Church. Therefore, I am sure that if the ecumenical movement will succeed in the Church of Antioch, it would be a blessing for the ecumenical efforts worldwide.

The very name of our Church is in itself a sign of our role: we are a Greek Church and we represent the heritage of the Greek language and culture in the whole Middle East; we are a Melkite Church, and that means our inculturation in our Arab world; we are a Catholic Church, and that corresponds to the universal character, in addition to our communion with the Apostolic See of Rome.

The initiative taken by our Holy Synod in 1996 was a consequence and a manifestation of our ecumenical role, but it does not cover all the different aspects of that same role. Anyway, if the Orthodox-Catholic, dialogue is successful in the framework of the Antiochian area, it could be an example for all the other efforts elsewhere.

In fact, His Holiness Pope John Paul II several times has encouraged the dialogue at local levels as a preparation for and a contribution to wider dialogues. In his speeches during his visit to Syria, last year, the Holy Father encouraged our Church to continue in the way of ecumenical initiatives, especially in view of the common date for the celebration of Easter, and generally for the promotion of ecumenism. The work for unity is, indeed, an essential dimension of the existence of our Church. It is a must, a to be or not to be, present in the field of ecumenism.

The Melkite-Greek Catholic Church has been and still is always deeply concerned by the ecumenical problems on local as well as international levels. It is a consequence and a result of the proper mission and historical identity of our Church.

The 1996 initiative was minded and elaborated to restore the communion, between Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics, in the framework of our Antiochian Patriarchate. I consider it is necessary to know and to read the full text of that document. Hereby; the full English translation: of the statement adopted and published by our Holy Synod and the late Patriarch Maximos V on July 27, 1996:

(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

The local and international reactions to our initiative were great. And, now, we continue the march toward unity, together in our own name and in the name of our faithful. If this initiative were successful, even after a long time, a new way should be open in the road toward unity on the Antiochian and on the international levels. Therefore, there is no turning back.

We must express special thanks to our Greek Orthodox brothers for their remarks and objections, and for the special position they adopted in their 1997 Holy Synod.

Our initiative is an answer to the desire and the prayer of Jesus. We want to realize this unity in the way He means. For that reason, we shall continue the effort to realize our initiative with all those who are working for unity; at the same time, we would like to make them sensible to such a holy duty, and we ask for their help so that, together, we may succeed, in several items.

We are certainly in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, and we do want to keep the fullness of that unity. The letter sent to my predecessor Maximos V, after the publication of our 1996 document, by Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger, Achille Silvestrini and Edward Idris Cassidy, clearly states their willingness to help. And now we are preparing, within our Holy Synod, a reduced "ad hoc" committee, in charge of continuing the dialogue with Rome on that matter.

We hope to have a deep cooperation with the Greek Orthodox Churches and theologians, not only in the Middle East (that is to say with the Patriarchates of Antioch, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem), but also in the world (beginning with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then with the Churches of Greece, Russia, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and so on).

Of course, we are also wishing to receive help and support from the theologians who are especially experts about Eastern theology, as it was done with my predecessor Maximos IV during the Second Vatican Council.

And, naturally, we want to cooperate with our Greek-Catholic brothers in the world, with all the Catholic Churches of Byzantine tradition, in Ukraine, Romania, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Macedonia, Greece, the United States, Canada, etc.

Next year, in 2003, we shall have a special session of our Patriarchal Holy Synod, and we have invited to attend its work representatives of the Catholic Byzantine Churches all over the world, as well as orientalist theologians and observers from local and other Churches of Western and Eastern traditions.

In the framework of our own Church, we will deeply continue the inside work, on the level of the pastors as well as on the level of the faithful. We have a special duty on the ecclesiological and theological levels, and we must form a special theological commission to study the different ecumenical aspects, dimensions and difficulties of our initiative.

The 1996 initiative is an ineluctable concern of our Melkite tradition since the times of my predecessors Boutros III and Gregory II, until Maximos IV and Maximos V. It is our basic vocation, as it corresponds to the very signification of our existence, as Melkite-Greek Catholics, in the Catholic Church of Christ. Therefore, it must be our most important task in the new Millennium.

The relationship between Antiochian Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox is an absolutely specific one, as our Greek Orthodox brethren also have a proper desire of unity. Nobody, indeed, can fulfill the endeavour in our place.

It is necessary to recognize that our 1996 initiative is, in a great part (but not exclusively, since the ecumenical efforts and research of Archbishop Elias Zoghby were previous to Balamand and begun decades earlier), a consequence and a result of the Balamand document about the Eastern Churches presently in communion with the Church of Rome. As it is well known, the Balamand statement considers that our communion with Rome since 1724 and its continuation to our days represent an ecclesiological failure. And this initiative of our Church is the will to correct such a failure.

We hope that our initiative could be an example to be followed by other Catholic Eastern Churches (of the Syrian, Armenian and Coptic traditions, as well as the Chaldean Church with the Assyrian Church). Such moves from those Churches could then support our own march. All similar initiatives would be in line with the spirit of ecumenism which started from the Second Vatican Council.

It is evident that, to achieve the aim of our initiative in the Antiochian Patriarchate, several and different steps are needed. And, in that dimension, we must work in cooperation with our Orthodox brethren on the levels of theological studies and specific theological formation for priests, male and female religious, and laity.

The evidence and clearness of our sincere will to continue the march could be elements that give courage to our faithful, give confidence to their hearts and animate the holy faith in their souls.

We consider that our role is not only local, in the Middle East area, but also international and worldwide. Like what happened during the Second Vatican Council, through our initiative in the Antiochian area, we invite the Christian world to move in the same direction; as it was during the Second Vatican Council, the world is waiting for our voice.

The ecclesiological dimension has the leading role in the ecumenical movement in the world. But why is the ecumenical movement now in deep crisis, quite in agony? After the meeting in Balamand, the International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches met once in the United States (in Baltimore), without any result, and since then has not met any more.

All these things are urging us to go ahead in our prophetical role, in the line of my predecessors Gregorios II and Maximos IV.

But we must not forget that the official theological position of Rome does not represent the position of all Western Catholics. As it was recently underlined by Archbishop John Raphael Quinn, there are Roman Catholic theologians who do not completely and fully accept the ecclesiology of the First and Second Vatican Councils. This is why our firm decision to achieve our initiative will let us get into the arena of the international ecumenical movement and work.

My predecessor Maximos V had choosen as his "motto" the word of the Lord: "Put out into deep water" (Luke 5:4). Our Lord encourages us when He says: "Do not live in fear, little flock" (Luke 12:32).

Our ecumenical line and vision includes several levels and endeavours.

On the synodal and ecclesiological levels, we have to study and deepen our ecclesiological theology and thought. Especially, we have to determine our theological position about the points the Greek Orthodox asked for, after our 1996 statement. We must, also, study the implications and consequences of the already mentionned letter of the three Cardinals after our 1996 initiative, and study them with the present persons in charge in the Vatican, namely Cardinal Ignace Moussa I Daoud and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

It is also clear that new possibilities have been opened by the visit of Pope John Paul II to Syria last year. And we must study, with a special attention, the present, ecumenical position of the Antiochian Greek Orthodox after the Holy Father's visit to Damascus, as it has been expressed in the address of His Beatitude Ignatius IV to the Pope of Rome, and later after the visit to Assisi and Rome by Patriarch Ignatius IV and his new meeting with Pope John Paul II (October 2001).

Obviously, to continue the initiative of 1996, it is necessary to re-activate both "ad hoc'" committees then created by our respective Holy Synods.

On the pastoral level, we have to set up a detailed list of dogmas, uses and traditions that are common to us: theology, ecclesiology, Liturgy, Sacraments, etc. Among our common uses, we must give a special attention to the forms of popular devotion, fasting, processions, memorials, vows, liturgical music, etc.

We have to emphasize the fact that what unites us is not only the heritage of the first Millennium, but also the Orthodox heritage until 1724.

We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI), theological dogmas formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts (Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Theotokos, infallibility of the Pope of Rome).

Finally, to ensure the diffusion of the theological and pastoral aspects of our thought, so that the ecumenical concern will become general on the popular level as well as on the academic one, it would be useful to have a common publication of Orthodox and Catholic documents and pastoral letters, showing the concrete progress of the ecumenical endeavour.

The coming theological path and stage is to move from Unia (that is to say "Uniatism") to Koinonia (Communion).

The Document of Balamand established that our 1724 experience was not the best ecclesiological solution. Certainly, we do exist, and we have the right to live, but our situation cannot be considered as an example for the future.

Our initiative of 1996, after the Document of Balamand, was willing to correct the mistakes of 1724, with the intention of clarifying our relations with the Church of Rome, as well as with the Orthodox Church, through the path from Unia to that of Koinonia. We have to take into account, also, that often we receive splendid documents from the Pope of Rome, but we have been living, at the same time, the experience of a behavior of Departments of the Roman Curia which does not correspond to the aforesaid Pontifical documents.

In 2000, the Council of the Catholic Eastern Patriarchs issued a statement in which a more real autonomy is required for our Eastern Churches, together with an urgent revision of the recently promulgated Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, and also a new modality of mutual relations (of the Eastern Churches with Rome, and of Rome with the Eastern Churches), not based upon authority, but characterized by, consent and reciprocal consultations.

Our path from Unia to Koinonia, in addition to the solution of the present stagnation of ecumenism, could be of great utility for the Church of Rome and for the Orthodox Churches. The last ones could understand that their future communion with the Church of Rome would not be according to the Unia conception, but in the framework of a spirit of Koinonia, which was the characteristic of East-West ecclesiological relations in the first Millennium, and was not only in two directions (from Rome and towards Rome), but multidirectionnal, between Rome and the Patriarchal and Metropolitan Sees, and between the last ones, from See to See, on all levels.

It is our future, it is the future of ecumenism, for the Church of Rome as well as for the Orthodox Churches.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Believe me, I don't! The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.

Oh but you do. Everytime the Pope is dicussed in relationship to the Eastern Catholic Churches, you take it as an opportunity to dissent from Catholic teaching, creating your own religion that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

That's an exaggeration. I don't even have that many posts here at OC.net, and even fewer existing posts at CAF.

P.S. - Based upon our respective post counts and our screen names it is pretty clear that you are the one who is fixated on the papacy.

P.P.S. - I don't dissent at all from Catholic teaching, I just refuse to equate Catholic teaching with Latin doctrinal formulations.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 02:56:48 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.

Very true! The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.

I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox

I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church? Or did you just say that? Now...I, too, just fell over

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.

My pleasure !

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.

Many people take the papacy too seriously.

Yes... you do.

Believe me, I don't! The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.

Oh but you do. Everytime the Pope is dicussed in relationship to the Eastern Catholic Churches, you take it as an opportunity to dissent from Catholic teaching, creating your own religion that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Since we've come back (more or less) to the topic of encouraging-fellow-Catholics-to-leave, I'm curious what your take is, Papist. Specifically, would you only encourage someone to leave if you believe he/she is already automatically excommunicated?

I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?

I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East. Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodoxy en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.

Todd, again why be in communion with a Church that you disagree with ( or as you put it "you are in communion with some one who is in communion with... ), when you can be in communion with a body with whom you agree, namely the Eastern Orthodox?

Todd, again why be in communion with a Church that you disagree with ( or as you put it "you are in communion with some one who is in communion with... ), when you can be in communion with a body with whom you agree, namely the Eastern Orthodox?

I am in full agreement with the Church of which I am a member (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church).

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Todd, again why be in communion with a Church that you disagree with ( or as you put it "you are in communion with some one who is in communion with... ), when you can be in communion with a body with whom you agree, namely the Eastern Orthodox?

I am in full agreement with the Church of which I am a member (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church).

If you are in communion with some one in communion with somone in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with Rome. You don't believe in the faith of the Romans.So why not being in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, whith whomb you agree? Why do you continue LARPing?

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ." Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos. St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ." Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos. St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.

You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation

. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.

Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 03:21:01 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ." Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos. St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.

You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one. The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?

If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ." Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos. St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.

You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one. The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate.

You know very well that the Latin Church teaches that Christ is present in the Church, unless you didn't really get a masters degree in theology.